Gary Johnson - Is he a lesser of 3 evils or not

[freedomordeath]

Never been a fan (my gut told me NO lol)... but to be honest never worried about poeple voting for him. Every now and then I would write some comment when annoyed that some pro Gary dude would tell all the Ron Paulers they were wasting their vote, but other then this I had no problem poeple voting for him.

Today I read some interesting comments that I thought I would post here and maybe we can sort the facts froms the lies so that a true Ron Pauler does not make the mistake voting for the lesser of 3 evils. If the bad stuff is irrelevent then sure vote for Gary Johnson.

My aim here is not to prevent you voting for Gary Johnson my aim is to apeal to your BRAIN, get back to first principles and anaylize why you voting for Gary, make it an informed decision, and not walk into another prison for your mind (a matrix within a matrix)

Here is the link to the source of the comments found below the article http://www.dailypaul.com/258961/am-i-crazy

The comment on the fair tax raised an eyebrow for me


respectfully disagree
Submitted by C_T_CZ on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 16:26. Permalink

Gary Johnson has made it abundantly clear that he is extremely different than the (R) and (D) candidates on a wide variety of issues, including foreign policy, the economy, and social issues. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Gary Johnson's stand on issues, found on his website:

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues

In fact there is about 92.4% alignment between Gary Johnson's policies and Ron Paul's policies, making Gary Johnson the best second choice for anyone who wanted to vote for Ron Paul.
—

The Liberty Movement can still win in November, by voting for Gary Johnson!! http://http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
I'm a Ron Paul Republican, a GOP precinct delegate, and I approved this message.

Login or register to post comments


Vote up!
+1
Vote down!
That 92.4% stat is cute, but meaningless...
Submitted by Pauling Is My Hobby on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 16:35. Permalink

once you consider that the things on which RP and GJ differ are fundamental tenets of the liberty movement: a FULL end to our insane foreign policy, not a half-assed one; an END to the IRS and the legalized theft known as the income tax, not just a shifting of the burden; the right to LIFE, period, not just when a scientist or bureaucrat says you can live, etc.

So keep spitting out your inane percentages to obscure the issues. I'll stick to my gut and write in Ron Paul, the ONLY dependable pro-liberty voice we have.
—

I don't play, I commission the league.

Login or register to post comments


Vote up!
-1
Vote down!
Gary Johnson
Submitted by WestCoastPatriot on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 18:04. Permalink

I understand your reservations about Gary Johnson, and I respect your decision to write in Ron Paul, but I think you are going a little overboard here. First, Gary Johnson has nothing to do with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Here is their roster at the J's: http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=J His name is not there. When you throw out untrue statements, it diminishes your ideas to everyone. True, Gary Johnson is not Ron Paul. True, Ron Paul is not staunch Libertarian, but considered a conservative Libertarian. The Facts: You can only write in Ron Paul as his name will not be on the ballot in any state. With the blatant disregard of rules and federal law, the RNC was able to steal the nomination from Paul. They will do the same thing with write ins, find a way to give those votes to Romney as they are going to be desperate for Romney votes (do not think they cannot do it). Virgil Goode is a good choice, but alas, he will only be on the ballot in 26 states, the rest will be write in and again, the RNC is desperate for Romney votes. Gary Johnson is actually on the ballot in 48 states, and there is still a good chance that he will be on the other two. He is a Liberty candidate that is the opposite of Mitt and Barack, so that makes him a better choice than the two Goldman Sachs boys. He has said, "Be Libertarian with me for ONE election, and if after four years, you want to go back to the present system, vote them back." If enough people vote for the Libertarian Party in all the states, we will then have a viable vehicle for the Liberty Movement going forward as we will then have funding available. This movement has always been about more than just one person, and we may NEVER see another as good as Ron Paul, but we must continue to fight and win the battles for Freedom at every turn. That is my take on this, anyone else?

Login or register to post comments


Vote up!
+3
Vote down!
1. While Gary himself isn't a
Submitted by Pauling Is My Hobby on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 18:46. Permalink

1. While Gary himself isn't a CFR member, his advisor Doug Turner is.

2. Nothing's stopping the vote-counters from flipping Gary Johnson votes to Willard... in fact, it's probably easier for them to flip those instead of the write-ins. Even if they throw all the write-in votes in the trash, making the corrupt shills see Ron Paul's name millions of times on election day until it's seared into their retinas is a FAR stronger message than voting for an irrelevant neocon just because he has an L next to his name.

3. Virgil Goode is just as bad as Gary Johnson, but instead of advocating for forcing abortionist and warmonger views on us, he's pushing an overtly-religious agenda instead.

4. There are many talking points Gary has in common with Willard and Barack... do some research and find out. His record shows that he isn't what he says he is.

"Be Libertarian for one election"... maybe Gary should take his own advice. He doesn't even know what the Non-Aggression Principle is, a fundamental tenet of libertarianism.


And how do you get what Ron Paul himself said we need?
Submitted by C_T_CZ on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 16:28. Permalink

A vote for Gary Johnson takes us one step closer to fulfilling what Ron Paul himself said we need.
—

The Liberty Movement can still win in November, by voting for Gary Johnson!! http://http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues
I'm a Ron Paul Republican, a GOP precinct delegate, and I approved this message.

Login or register to post comments


Vote up!
+5
Vote down!
A FairTax Expands the Federal Government Further into the States
Submitted by Richard Taylor APP on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 18:34. Permalink

Unenumerated Taxation is Unenumerated Taxation.

The NEW FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY under the Fairtax, will not only regulate AND monitor Business taxes in your state, it will define what is and is not a business.

There was a very good reason that the ORIGINAL Constitution required that federal taxes (Only for two things - National Defense and the National Dept - from tariffs in Consequence of the "Welfare Clause" - Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788).

The Income Tax, the FairTax and Flat Tax are all UNENUMERATED FLAT PERCENTAGE TAXES that INCREASE MONEY TO GOVERNMENT WITHOUT CONSENT OR OVERSIGHT. Then they decide where THEY want to spend it!

The Fair Tax is even more dangerous in that it allows the Federal and State Governments to merge... NOT GOOD. And Dictate What is and What is not a Business... WORSE! it invites them into your home and computer....

The Original Constitutional Tax, Enumerated What the Tax Was For "BEFORE" it was CONSENSUALLY collected - READ IT.

Ron Paul Wants to return to that because it limits government.

If the Federal government stayed within the Constitution it would have little to do (and far less to spend),

* Can only collect taxes under the Welfare clause for Debt and Defense;

* Could only procecute 4 crimes (se the Convention Constitution and Kentucky Resolutions #2 - AND NO OTHER CRIMES WHATSOEVER - Thomas Jefferson;

* And Could not govern police outside the 10 miles square of Washington DC. Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788.

All on our 4 Suggested Reading Documents http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc

Gary Johnson, by promoting the FairTax, what is actually a BUY SELL AND TRADE TAX, is far worse that Obama or Romney who at least keep the federal taxes separate from the states;

Instead of simply nullifying unconstitutional laws, he wants to "submit a balanced budget to congress"... big deal.... and they will say NO because their bought off with Unions, Corporations and Special Interest Groups Dependent upon a wasteful Government.

I am sure Gary will feel very good about himself making such a Great and Glorious Sacrifice, in that he wrote a letter to Congress in hopes that they might give some consideration and mercy upon his wishes before they answer.

He is totally OPPOSITE of Ron Paul; in that he has shown no will to do what is really necessary to reduce the Federal Government;

And that is to SHUT IT DOWN and CLOSE IT DOWN within the states and SLAP their hands away from the purse by getting rid of the Income tax and Replace it with NOTHING!

American Patriot Party.CC
http://www.americanpatriotparty.cc
—

RichardTaylorAPP - Chair - American Patriot Party.CC

John Locke #201, 202, 212 to 232; Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions 1798; Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788; Rights of the Colonists 1772.

Login or register to post comments


Vote up!
Vote down!
psnow's picture
Thanks..
Submitted by psnow on Mon, 10/15/2012 - 19:08. Permalink

Thanks for the clarification & the link Richard. Good luck, I think your on to something.

[misean]

Never been a fan (my gut told me NO lol)... \

Almost stopped reading after that. I'm not sure gut feel is the best way to make decisions.

Gary Johnson isn't the lesser of any evils. He's great and I'm thankful someone like him is running. He is the most credible Libertarian Party candidate.... EVER

I think a consumption tax makes a lot of sense. It gets taxation incentives properly aligned. People like Ron Paul's biggest donor Peter Thiel agree.

And lol at the CFR reference. Milton Friedman was affiliated with CFR. I'm not so sure Milton was part of the Illuminati.

[acptulsa]

He is the most credible Libertarian Party candidate.... EVER

I tend to disagree. I really, really liked that LP candidate I voted for back in 1988.

That said, yes, Johnson is the lesser evil by such a huge margin that he doesn't really qualify for the 'evil' title at all. By Washington standards, he's a saint. Good 'nuff.

[TheTexan]

Indeed. GJ is about as credible as clown shoes on a golden retriever. If you want a credible LP candidate, look to Harry Browne. GJ has fucked up everything the LP ever claimed to stood for.

Sound money? GJ is clueless.

Non-interventionism? Clueless.

Drug war? Clueless. (Tax & regulate marijuana? Keep the hard drugs illegal? Absurdity.)

Furthermore, this "pragmatism/cost-benefit-analysis" approach to liberty isn't doing him any favors as far as his electability is concerned. All he's doing is making the LP look bad.

With that said, he is a fine protest vote. However, I don't want him anywhere near the debates, it would do more harm than good

[misean]

I tend to disagree. I really, really liked that LP candidate I voted for back in 1988.



I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman. He's never won a broad election or even been a leader. I guess maybe he ran a doctor's office. Though Gary Johnson ran a business with 1000 employees that he started.

[TheTexan]

I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman. He's never won a broad election or even been a leader. I guess maybe he ran a doctor's office. Though Gary Johnson ran a business with 1000 employees that he started.

Who polled higher in national polls for the Republican nomination for the Office of the President of the United States?

[acptulsa]

I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman.

That's the conventional viewpoint. It is not, however, my viewpoint.

Congressmen have dealt with national issues. Congressmen have, in fact dealt with Congress. And Congress isn't exactly like a state legislature. What's more, connections in some state legislature doesn't do a president a bit of good; connections in Congress, however, might.

Besides, we've had governors in the White House before. Men like Carter, Reagan, and Dubya. Maybe I'm just weird, but when I get results like that I tend to be ready to try something else. Anything else, even.

[misean]

Who polled higher in national polls for the Republican nomination for the Office of the President of the United States?

That's obviously an idiotic response.

[TheTexan]

That's obviously an idiotic response.

No more idiotic than claiming Gary Johnson is somehow credible because he "ran a business."

I guess Romney is ridiculously credible by that standard

[misean]

No more idiotic than claiming Gary Johnson is somehow credible because he "ran a business."

I guess Romney is ridiculously credible by that standard

I didn't claim he was credible because he ran a business.

[TheTexan]

I didn't claim he was credible because he ran a business.


I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman. He's never won a broad election or even been a leader. I guess maybe he ran a doctor's office. Though Gary Johnson ran a business with 1000 employees that he started.

You certainly implied it.

[misean]

You certainly implied it.

I certainly did not imply it. I tried to come up with an argument that someone might use in support of Ron Paul's leadership experience and made the point that it pales compared with someone like Johnson. Ron Paul's resume is pretty thin to be President.

More importantly, I don't get why people can't see how big Johnson could be for libertarian ideas in politics. Being good on policy and ideology is only part of the equation and its probably not even 50% of the equation for being a leader.

[TheTexan]

I certainly did not imply it. I tried to come up with an argument that someone might use in support of Ron Paul's leadership experience and made the point that it pales compared with someone like Johnson. Ron Paul's resume is pretty thin to be President.

I think you're just dancing around your own words at this point, but /shrug


More importantly, I don't get why people can't see how big Johnson could be for libertarian ideas in politics. Being good on policy and ideology is only part of the equation and its probably not even 50% of the equation for being a leader.

First of all, he's not good on policy and ideology. Second, being a good "leader" does not make one a better President. I would go so far as to say Obama is a great leader. Despite all his failures, he continues to inspire millions. But he's "leading" us to our own doom.

I don't want a "leader." Fuck your "leader." I want a representative.

[farreri]

Enjoy Obama or Romney, Johnson-haters.

[Jay C]

I wish I could vote for Gary or Ron but I learned in Bush vs Gore that the lesser of two evils is well worth voting for. Romney would be a far worse outcome than Obama. At least Obama would keep us out of useless wars. I'm voting AGAINST useless wars and that means I will have to vote for Obama. Romney would be a disaster of Bush proportions.

[Dick Chaney]

He's an improvement, but certainly not the answer.

[TheTexan]

I wish I could vote for Gary or Ron but I learned in Bush vs Gore that the lesser of two evils is well worth voting for. Romney would be a far worse outcome than Obama. At least Obama would keep us out of useless wars. I'm voting AGAINST useless wars and that means I will have to vote for Obama. Romney would be a disaster of Bush proportions.

Even if it were true that Obama is better [it isnt], voting for the lesser of two evils can only be a short term gain at the most... you are ensuring long term destruction by perpetuating the broken system

[brooks009]

I still have not seen any good arguments against voting for Gary including anything in this thread.

[acptulsa]

At least Obama would keep us out of useless wars.

I hope you don't mind terribly if I ask Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia for a second opinion...? :rolleyes:

You can say the first two are different, as Dubya stuck our fists in those Tar Babies, and pulling out would allegedly be 'irresponsible' at this point. I could argue that not pulling out is more irresponsible, but we'll set that aside. The other three are new Tar Babies, and Obama is responsible for us getting both feet and our pointed head stuck too.

Romney promises war. Obama promises peace but delivers war. Obama promises big government programs. Romney promises small government, but gives his electorate things like the Big Dig with its deadly falling ceiling tiles. Romney promises corporatism, like support of Monsanto. Obama promises a reduction of corporatism, then appoints Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. Obama promises socialized medicine. Romney comes out against socialized medicine, then makes his state the first in the nation with it.

You may consider the noises, outbursts and mumbo jumbo of these two idiots significant. I prefer to look at what they do. And when you look at what they do, as opposed to what they say, they're as identical as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

[69360]

I still have not seen any good arguments against voting for Gary including anything in this thread.

I haven't either. The people complaining about GJ are so nitpicky they will never have a candidate in power.

[surf]

I learned in Bush vs Gore that the lesser of two evils is well worth voting for. i haven't thought about this in years.... not sure what the implication is - though i'm guessing you're saying you'd have preferred the dumb ivy-league warmonger over the dumb ivy-league warmonger.

[acptulsa]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_Ioj-TKj4..

[Noblegeorge]

Yeah im voting for Gary. He's an excellent alternative to RP. Hes got a great record. He understands monetary policy, foreign policy, education, civil rights issues etc.

[freedomordeath]

Yeah im voting for Gary. He's an excellent alternative to RP. Hes got a great record. He understands monetary policy, foreign policy, education, civil rights issues etc.

To the great record you are talking about, exactly what is his view point on central banking. THIS IS KEY, because central banking is a mechanism by which our labour and resources are used against us. IF this is not stopped, then they will have money infinity to finance the war against us freedom lovers.

Also I heard that he is for humanatarian war ie Kony etc is this true.


I haven't either. The people complaining about GJ are so nitpicky they will never have a candidate in power.

Whats so hard following the constitution, the correct question why can't we find one person in America that would follow the constitution in leadership.


Enjoy Obama or Romney, Johnson-haters.

lol... thats what the RNC told us when voting for Ron Paul, excl Romney ofcourse.


I like Ron Paul better, but he isn't more credible. Gary Johnson is a two term governor of a state. Ron Paul is a Congressman. He's never won a broad election or even been a leader. I guess maybe he ran a doctor's office. Though Gary Johnson ran a business with 1000 employees that he started.

Dude you missing the point... DO YOU NOT READ HAYEK, MISES, ROTHBARD, BASTIAT. We do not need some great business leader, if we wanted a great businness man we could ask Bill Gates. Infact a successful businessman would be counter productive becuase he would always want to RUN THINGS. The role of a great leader OF A COUNTRY (not a business) is one that steps aside, lets everyone else GET ON WITH IT. His role would be to interfere as little as possible, it should be the easiest job in the world.

[misean]

Dude you missing the point... DO YOU NOT READ HAYEK, MISES, ROTHBARD, BASTIAT. We do not need some great business leader, if we wanted a great businness man we could ask Bill Gates. Infact a successful businessman would be counter productive becuase he would always want to RUN THINGS. The role of a great leader OF A COUNTRY (not a business) is one that steps aside, lets everyone else GET ON WITH IT. His role would be to interfere as little as possible, it should be the easiest job in the world.

I'm torn with that thinking. If you would have asked me a year ago, I would have something similar. I would still think like that if the government were its Constitutional size. I've changed my mind for where we are at now. The President needs make a lot of decisions. A libertarian president ,in particular, would have a large challenge communicating the need to shrink government. There are challenges like working on budget. The President can't get all the cuts (or maybe any) he wants in the budget. He's going to have to work with legislators.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve would be a huge challenge. It would also be critically important to have to have competent people able to develop a strategy to unwind positions and sell this idea to the general public and Congress. This isn't something that could just be done overnight over even over the course of years. This is a situation where having a "good leader" is very important.

I'm more convinced of Friedman's approach to trying to change the country than Rothbard's.

And I wasn't making the point that the country needs a great business leader. I do think some high level leadership experience is important though.

[VIDEODROME]

He wants to end the IRS. I don't care if it'smore incremental than how people think Ron Paul would do it. End this bullshit now.

[GunnyFreedom]

Somehow, somewhere, Gary Johnson has discovered the power in the US Constitution to enforce marriage equality against the States by Washington DC at the point of a gun. He calls it a Constitutional right. I frankly don't give a damn what someone thinks about gay marriage or traditional marriage, I simply cannot support any politician that invents random powers and calls them Constitutional. That power is not now nor has it ever been delegated to the Federal government in the US Constitution, and since I cannot vote for anybody I believe will ignore violate or abrogate the Constitution, I have now become unable to vote Johnson based on this position.

The Constitution says what it means and means what it says. If I wanted a President who just randomly invents new powers that the Constitution never conceived of, I could go with the expert at it RomBama.

[DeMintConservative]

I'm torn with that thinking. If you would have asked me a year ago, I would have something similar. I would still think like that if the government were its Constitutional size. I've changed my mind for where we are at now. The President needs make a lot of decisions. A libertarian president ,in particular, would have a large challenge communicating the need to shrink government. There are challenges like working on budget. The President can't get all the cuts (or maybe any) he wants in the budget. He's going to have to work with legislators.

Eliminating the Federal Reserve would be a huge challenge. It would also be critically important to have to have competent people able to develop a strategy to unwind positions and sell this idea to the general public and Congress. This isn't something that could just be done overnight over even over the course of years. This is a situation where having a "good leader" is very important.

I'm more convinced of Friedman's approach to trying to change the country than Rothbard's.

And I wasn't making the point that the country needs a great business leader. I do think some high level leadership experience is important though.

Fully agreed.

And when it comes to public policy changes, it's either gradualism or bust. It's how the constitutional machinery and political fabric are constructed to work.

[Gravik]

Indeed. GJ is about as credible as clown shoes on a golden retriever. If you want a credible LP candidate, look to Harry Browne. GJ has fucked up everything the LP ever claimed to stood for.

Sound money? GJ is clueless.

Non-interventionism? Clueless.

Drug war? Clueless. (Tax & regulate marijuana? Keep the hard drugs illegal? Absurdity.)

Furthermore, this "pragmatism/cost-benefit-analysis" approach to liberty isn't doing him any favors as far as his electability is concerned. All he's doing is making the LP look bad.

With that said, he is a fine protest vote. However, I don't want him anywhere near the debates, it would do more harm than good
How is he clueless on the drug war? Hard drugs would be treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. IMO that's 10000x better than either what Obama or Romney will do.

[VIDEODROME]

I think as a strategy we now have different pieces on a board. If it were Chess we'd probably say Ron Paul was the King. But we also have other people on the board like Gary Johnson or Rand Paul. These pieces are different and are trying to maneuver differently but I hope one way or another are heading toward a desirable goal.

Basically, I'd like to think we have multiple players in this game and we should use all of them if they offer any progress at all.


Also, even I don't think Gary Johnson has the deeply nuanced understanding of Monetary Policy that Ron Paul does. Yet, if Johnson were president I think it is safe to say Ron Paul could have his choice of cabinet positions or even Fed Chairman.

If Ron wanted input on Johnson's proposals it would probably be welcomed.

[Deborah K]

Indeed. GJ is about as credible as clown shoes on a golden retriever. If you want a credible LP candidate, look to Harry Browne. GJ has fucked up everything the LP ever claimed to stood for.

Sound money? GJ is clueless.

Non-interventionism? Clueless.

Drug war? Clueless. (Tax & regulate marijuana? Keep the hard drugs illegal? Absurdity.)

Furthermore, this "pragmatism/cost-benefit-analysis" approach to liberty isn't doing him any favors as far as his electability is concerned. All he's doing is making the LP look bad.

With that said, he is a fine protest vote. However, I don't want him anywhere near the debates, it would do more harm than good

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

[torchbearer]

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

It is better if we just mindless bash someone who is on team liberty.
we get hungry. we are cannibals.

[TheTexan]

I'm not voting for GJ, but I really have to ask you if you've examined his record as Governor?

Yes I have. Does not change a thing

[torchbearer]

hope the johnson bashers aren't planning to do any team building in the future.

[TheTexan]

hope the johnson bashers aren't planning to do any team building in the future.

Criticism = bashing?

Was anything I said incorrect? Does Johnson actually understand sound money principles? Is he actually a non-interventionist? Is his drug policy not utilitarian in nature?

As governor did he pardon more than 2 people for non-violent drug offenses? Did he try to pardon more than 2 people for non-violent drug offenses? (I'm giving him 2 freebies, haven't investigated if those 2 were real)

I know he's lied about his pardon record. I can tell you that much. (It was either a lie, or he has no idea what "pardon" means... most governors I think would know what it means)

[Deborah K]

Yes I have. Does not change a thing

Really? He's advocating balanced budgets and tax reform, and while Governor he balanced budgets, didn't raise a single tax, and left office with a surplus. Gary Johnson's governorship presided over the largest job growth of any candidate with 11.6% job growth, and he did it by reducing the government's role. He was one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history. He set a state record for vetoes.

Since the economy and its looming collapse is at the forefront in this election, I would think that people who are trying to decide who to vote for would at the very least give heavy consideration to this man's RECORD not RHETORIC on the subject.

[freedomordeath]

I think posts like this are good, because when you vote it must be a fully investigated informed decsion, if every American voted like this then it would change the country overnight. Every person you vote for from here on out must be fully vetted.

[TheTexan]

Really? He's advocating balanced budgets and tax reform, and while Governor he balanced budgets, didn't raise a single tax, and left office with a surplus.

That's great. However, balancing budgets is meaningless without sound money, and his tax reform is simply tinkering around the edges than real reform. Fair tax can get rid of a lot of paperwork, but other than that, it solves nothing. (I am in favor of replacing income tax with the fair tax, but only as a minor issue)


Gary Johnson's governorship presided over the largest job growth of any candidate with 11.6% job growth, and he did it by reducing the government's role. He was one of the most anti-spending governors in New Mexico history. He set a state record for vetoes.

That's fantastic. He's very utilitarian like that. I'm sure while in office he would veto everything and cut spending to the best of his ability. I'm also sure that, after he left office, his successor would go right back to spending again.

As long as the Federal Reserve exists, spending will never be cut in the long term. And GJ has no plans to resolve that problem.


Since the economy and its looming collapse is at the forefront in this election, I would think that people who are trying to decide who to vote for would at the very least give heavy consideration to this man's RECORD not RHETORIC on the subject.

You only looked at the bottom line. The jobs, taxes, spending. Great indicators for sure. But you apparently glossed over the economic interventionism in his record and other such meddling where he does not belong.

His record proves he's a utilitarian. He has no problems with infringing upon your liberty if it's for the greater good. He just happens to believe that cutting spending and taxes is for the greater good. It has nothing to do with principles. Just utility.

I have zero trust, zero, that he would stay strong to those utilitarian spending-cuts and tax-cuts in an economic collapse. None. It's very likely that he would have a "utilitarian change of heart" and believe we'd need to "save the dollar and have a strong dollar again." The dollar can't be saved. It's beyond saving. But GJ can't see that. Which is why it would be very dangerous to have him in office during an economic collapse.

Furthermore, he has lied on several occasions. He has a very bad habit of answering "yes" to questions when he doesn't really mean it. How can I trust a man with no principles and little honesty? Because he had good job growth as governor? I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Not for me. You do what you like.

[misean]

Utilitarian... .. Utilitarian.... Utilitarian

This isn't a philosophy exam. About .3% or less of people think similarly to you. I don't even agree with you and I have probably read a lot of the same things you have. There are not a whole of people who think like the people on this forum. You aren't going to get a consensus on making huge changes that quickly. How about moving the football forward? It would be nice to actually see positive changes made and get some positive momentum.

Being utilitarian isn't bad. Mises was utilitarian. Hayek was the ultimate utilitarian.

[Deborah K]

That's great. However, balancing budgets is meaningless without sound money, and his tax reform is simply tinkering around the edges than real reform. Fair tax can get rid of a lot of paperwork, but other than that, it solves nothing. (I am in favor of replacing income tax with the fair tax, but only as a minor issue)



That's fantastic. He's very utilitarian like that. I'm sure while in office he would veto everything and cut spending to the best of his ability. I'm also sure that, after he left office, his successor would go right back to spending again.

As long as the Federal Reserve exists, spending will never be cut in the long term. And GJ has no plans to resolve that problem.



You only looked at the bottom line. The jobs, taxes, spending. Great indicators for sure. But you apparently glossed over the economic interventionism in his record and other such meddling where he does not belong.

His record proves he's a utilitarian. He has no problems with infringing upon your liberty if it's for the greater good. He just happens to believe that cutting spending and taxes is for the greater good. It has nothing to do with principles. Just utility.

I have zero trust, zero, that he would stay strong to those utilitarian spending-cuts and tax-cuts in an economic collapse. None. It's very likely that he would have a "utilitarian change of heart" and believe we'd need to "save the dollar and have a strong dollar again." The dollar can't be saved. It's beyond saving. But GJ can't see that. Which is why it would be very dangerous to have him in office during an economic collapse.

Furthermore, he has lied on several occasions. He has a very bad habit of answering "yes" to questions when he doesn't really mean it. How can I trust a man with no principles and little honesty? Because he had good job growth as governor? I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. Not for me. You do what you like.

If the issue is to vote for someone for President other than Robamney, then carefully examining a candidate's record should be a priority, not his interviews, gaffs, mispeaks, etc. That is the true litmus test. It speaks to why electing (selecting) someone with virtually NO record for President (as in the case of Obama) has damaged this country, possibly irreparably.

As I stated, I'm not voting for GJ. I'm probably not going to vote at all, because I believe the whole process is rigged.....I'm very torn about all of this actually. Very sad and disillusioned.

[CT4Liberty]

Enjoy Obama or Romney, Johnson-haters.

That would suggest that Johnson has any chance of actually winning? Even if every RP voter went with Johnson, I doubt that he would garner enough for victory as a Liberty ticket candidate.

The question for people is... do they vote their conscience (assuming they want to write in Paul) or do they want to pool their votes behind 1 candidate in Johnson who is formally on the ballot.

On a personal level - I think it has less to do with 1 candidate getting 10-15% of the vote and more with the 2 parties losing 10-15%, even if its to multiple 3rd parties/write ins. So, in my opinion, any vote against the 2 party system is letting your voice be heard.

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

[Deborah K]

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

Care to put quotations around that? Or are you John Quincy Adams incarnate? LOL. :p ;)

[DeMintConservative]

Every politician is a lesser evil. They're still men.

Voting for a lesser evil when the only impact of that vote will be rewarding the biggest evil of them all seems a bit nonsensical to me. I don't really see Johnson as much of an improvement over Romney anyway.

I'm also amused by seeing Gary Johnson made a third party hero.

This is the same Gary Johnson who was running for the GOP nomination just a few months ago and was a GOP elected official for years. Now he's lecturing people about ballot access and minor parties? C'mon, cut the BS. The only reason he's talking about that stuff is because he didn't win the GOP nomination. Otherwise, he'd be trying to get the LP candidate off ballot wherever he could.

[Working Poor]

Regardless of who wins or who we vote for the machine is till moving forward. We will have some victories because we have fought for them. We have helped we have kept the light on for liberty and this is good. The machine is moving we can steer it too. It is easier to steer a moving vehicle than a stopped one.

Your words are powerful careful now.

[acptulsa]

Every politician is a lesser evil. They're still men.

Well now. The most perfect Congressman and most tireless defender of the Constitution was the 'lesser evil' when we voted for him in the primary. Why? Because he has lust in his heart whenever he catches the aroma of Carol's cookies? Dude. Ron Paul is no evil politician. An imperfect man? What other kind is there? But in the political sense, an evil? Get out.


Voting for a lesser evil when the only impact of that vote will be rewarding the biggest evil of them all seems a bit nonsensical to me. I don't really see Johnson as much of an improvement over Romney anyway.

Of course, you actually consider the difference between the biggest evil and the second biggest evil to be significant. In this case, I think the facts put that theory to rest. And I doubt you see Johnson at all.


I'm also amused by seeing Gary Johnson made a third party hero.

I'm sure you are. I doubt, however, that if he were a genuine threat to the status quo you would be so blase' about it.


This is the same Gary Johnson who was running for the GOP nomination just a few months ago and was a GOP elected official for years. Now he's lecturing people about ballot access and minor parties? C'mon, cut the BS. The only reason he's talking about that stuff is because he didn't win the GOP nomination. Otherwise, he'd be trying to get the LP candidate off ballot wherever he could.

Point to one, just one, single solitary act in the man's record to support this theory. Did he sign a bill to restrict third party access in New Mexico? Did he make the New Mexico ballot harder to get on than, say, Oklahoma's? Did he sign the bill that outlaws write-in votes in New Mexico?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Opinions are like hemohrroids. Especially when they're this baseless.

The vast majority of the people here don't care to continue to prop up the one party system. Get over it.

[GunnyFreedom]

That would suggest that Johnson has any chance of actually winning? Even if every RP voter went with Johnson, I doubt that he would garner enough for victory as a Liberty ticket candidate.

The question for people is... do they vote their conscience (assuming they want to write in Paul) or do they want to pool their votes behind 1 candidate in Johnson who is formally on the ballot.

On a personal level - I think it has less to do with 1 candidate getting 10-15% of the vote and more with the 2 parties losing 10-15%, even if its to multiple 3rd parties/write ins. So, in my opinion, any vote against the 2 party system is letting your voice be heard.

And when in doubt, always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

(Emphasis added)

And if your principles recoil in horror that he's already discovering powers in the Constitution that no founder, framer, or amendment writer ever envisioned?

[LibertasPraesidium]

I am torn between writing in and voting GJ. His record is alright and i haven't found any good sources for his economic understanding or how far his foreign policy cuts would go. So if he could win, that is the information that would sway me. Writing in Paul would be a good feeling but I dont believe it would accomplish anything. And trying to decide between the two party ticket is mind numbing.
I don't think that even if people did vote libertarian we would get the numbers necessary that the debate group would just move them higher.
I do not believe there is much anyone can do about the outcome of this election anymore. Though as libertarian party grows so too does its influence in the election and if we could get a good LP candidate then we could do something in 2016. Otherwise we still have portions of the R party and can possibly put up Rand Paul.

Obama will win 85%
Romney will win 14.9999%
Gary Johnson win 0.0001%
What I am trying to figure out is what happens from here.

Ron Paul took back his honorary title as chairman over C4L I have the email that this is from
Source (http://www.dailypaul.com/257539/ron-paul-returns-as-chairman-of-campaign-for-liberty).
I am not sure what he plans to do after the election.

Anything now would be nice, but the liberty movement isnt going to coalesce around anything until after the elections. imo

[DeMintConservative]

Well now. The most perfect Congressman and most tireless defender of the Constitution was the 'lesser evil' when we voted for him in the primary. Why? Because he has lust in his heart whenever he catches the aroma of Carol's cookies? Dude. Ron Paul is no evil politician. An imperfect man? What other kind is there? But in the political sense, an evil? Get out.

All political arrangements are a necessary level and all will always be flawed. None is going to bring heaven to heart. Those who believe in optimal policy choices are Marxists with poor self-awareness.





Of course, you actually consider the difference between the biggest evil and the second biggest evil to be significant. In this case, I think the facts put that theory to rest. And I doubt you see Johnson at all.


I'm sure you are. I doubt, however, that if he were a genuine threat to the status quo you would be so blase' about it.



Point to one, just one, single solitary act in the man's record to support this theory. Did he sign a bill to restrict third party access in New Mexico? Did he make the New Mexico ballot harder to get on than, say, Oklahoma's? Did he sign the bill that outlaws write-in votes in New Mexico?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Opinions are like hemohrroids. Especially when they're this baseless.

I don't know, but did he make ballot access in Mexico easier?

More importantly: the man was just running for the nomination of half of the evil one-party just a few months ago. How exactly does he have credibility as a 3rd party hero? Do you really believe he has much of a problem with the 2 party system?

Everybody knows what his problem was: they didn't pick him. Otherwise he'd be running on the ticket of one of those evil parties. We can all agree on this, right? Trying to sell his candidacy as a principled stance against the 2 party system is amusing. [/QUOTE]



The vast majority of the people here don't care to continue to prop up the one party system. Get over it.

Really? One enters the forum and reads Bentivolio, Massie, Amash, Paul, etc, etc., etc..

There's a lot of attention and focus put on candidates for a party the majority of people here don't care about.

[acptulsa]

All political arrangements are a necessary level and all will always be flawed. None is going to bring heaven to heart. Those who believe in optimal policy choices are Marxists with poor self-awareness.

Tell it to Ron Paul.


I don't know, but did he make ballot access in Mexico easier?

How would he? And why?


More importantly: the man was just running for the nomination of half of the evil one-party just a few months ago. How exactly does he have credibility as a 3rd party hero? Do you really believe he has much of a problem with the 2 party system?

Why don't you ask Ron Paul?


Everybody knows what his problem was: they didn't pick him. Otherwise he'd be running on the ticket of one of those evil parties. We can all agree on this, right? Trying to sell his candidacy as a principled stance against the 2 party system is amusing.

He got into a debate. Are you saying that wasn't worthwhile? I have a principled stand against the one- (allegedly two-) party system, but that doesn't mean I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I've voted for both.

You've got some serious Red Team/Blue Team mentality going on. But that doesn't mean I have some kind of anti-team mentality going on.


Really? One enters the forum and reads Bentivolio, Massie, Amash, Paul, etc, etc., etc..

There's a lot of attention and focus put on candidates for a party the majority of people here don't care about.

Oh, yes, let's explore this one. DeMint Conservative is saying that association with one of these 'two' parties is tantamount to having the evil rub off on you? So, by that logic, Ron Paul (after 24 years as a Republican Congressman) should be voting like Graham by now--or, at least, should have a voting record which deteriorated over time until it's no better than DeMint's. Because I, for one, didn't see that happen. Maybe you know something about the man's voting record I don't...

Thank you for coming to Ron Paul Forums and indirectly and by inference trashing the doctor's good name. Can't tell you how endearing that is.

[Aratus]

think of a 269 v. 269 ELECTORAL COLLEGE TIE that is followed by a 217-217-1 HOUSE split (seriously said!)

[DeMintConservative]

Tell it to Ron Paul.



How would he? And why?



Why don't you ask Ron Paul?



He got into a debate. Are you saying that wasn't worthwhile? I have a principled stand against the one- (allegedly two-) party system, but that doesn't mean I've never voted for a Democrat or a Republican. I've voted for both.

You've got some serious Red Team/Blue Team mentality going on. But that doesn't mean I have some kind of anti-team mentality going on.


Oh, yes, let's explore this one. DeMint Conservative is saying that association with one of these 'two' parties is tantamount to having the evil rub off on you? So, by that logic, Ron Paul (after 24 years as a Republican Congressman) should be voting like Graham by now--or, at least, should have a voting record which deteriorated over time until it's no better than DeMint's. Because I, for one, didn't see that happen. Maybe you know something about the man's voting record I don't...

Thank you for coming to Ron Paul Forums and indirectly and by inference trashing the doctor's good name. Can't tell you how endearing that is.


I could. But I guess his answer would be "But I'm not running on a 3rd party line". So i don't quite understand the point you're making.

Glen Johnson was perfectly happy with the idea of being part of the 2 party system. Till he lost. That's all there is to it. The rest is just spin that can't be taken serious.

I'm saying that suggesting the 2 major parties are some sort of evil incarnated or that 3rd parties are somehow superior is silly - as the fact that the most appreciated candidates here are running under one of those parties banner suggests. Political parties are just that, groups of individuals, some better than others.

[acptulsa]

I could. But I guess his answer would be "But I'm not running on a 3rd party line". So i don't quite understand the point you're making.

The point I was making is that your rhetoric might be more inflammatory if it actually made a little sense.


Glen Johnson was perfectly happy with the idea of being part of the 2 party system. Till he lost. That's all there is to it. The rest is just spin that can't be taken serious.

Oh, we're talking about Glen Johnson. Well, that's different. Never heard of him.

Or are you professing to be an expert on Gary Johnson? If so, why not give us some quotes to show how 'perfectly happy' he was to be associated with the GOP?

'...taken serious'? You mimic the southern U.S. dialect pretty well, for a European. My compliments.


I'm saying that suggesting the 2 major parties are some sort of evil incarnated or that 3rd parties are somehow superior is silly - as the fact that the most appreciated candidates here are running under one of those parties banner suggests. Political parties are just that, groups of individuals, some better than others.

So why are you promoting Romney? So he can appoint judges who wear an R next to their names? Thus reassuring us that they will be superior, despite the proof positive Roberts is giving us that we can not depend on that? Especially when the person picking which 'R label' judges get to be justices is the Taxachussetts, Big Digging Father of Obamacare?